- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Alastair Malcolm <amalcolm.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:39:25 -0000

You now appear to be talking about the indeterminate case (where effectively

you can't fire individual random arrows), which is excluded on empirical

grounds (see sect. 2 again). I repeat, the selective use of copies as given

in the paper - *within* the context of states, and where relative

frequencies match those of other states - will differ (as far as I can tell)

from your 'nested everythings', which, if applicable, will be treated as a

distinguishable state, and so amenable to an ordering process (under all

possibilities).

Thank you anyway for your comments which have definitely been helpful to

me - I think we are bound to come up with different solutions if we have

different starting assumptions.

----- Original Message -----

From: H J Ruhl <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>

To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>

Sent: 23 February 2002 21:39

Subject: Re: Draft Philosophy Paper

*> Dear Alastair:
*

*>
*

*> What I have is an infinite tape. [Each line one could draw in the x
*

*> dimension is a different venue.] The entire tape from x = -1 to x = +10
*

*> and y = 0 to y = infinity is the target for each arrow launch. A random
*

*> aim sample [a very large one - infinite actually] will produce a uniform
*

*> density of hits over the entire area of the infinitely long and 11 unit
*

*> wide tape. The generalized density units will be hits per square. The
*

*> tape was parsed at x = 0 for your example. The tape area between x = -1
*

*> and x = 0 is identical to the area from x = 0 to x = +10. Multiplying the
*

*> density of hits by either area - both infinite - produces the same number
*

*> of hits - infinite - no bias as the sample size becomes infinite - the
*

*> convergence you speak of goes to an equal number of positive and negative
*

*> reals.
*

*>
*

*> This only works for an infinitely long tape but I have in my model enough
*

*> venues - nested Everythings - to pave such a tape.
*

*>
*

*> Any finite length of this tape follows the biased convergence result of
*

*> your original example.
*

*>
*

*> Of course any finite length of the tape has an infinite number of venues
*

as

*> well but if we made this restriction then we would have your information
*

*> rich result and where did that information come from? Basically this
*

would

*> be sort of like restricting things to halting programs and why that?
*

*>
*

*> Some like to allow never halting programs and I like an infinitely long
*

*> venue tape. Its origin is simple enough and uses the Everything and the
*

*> Nothing as synergistic rather than antagonistic concepts. It also helps
*

to

*> eliminate information from the Everything.
*

*>
*

*> Hal
*

*>
*

*> At 2/23/02, you wrote:
*

*> >[I think the principle of the following comment also applies to your
*

other

*> >post.]
*

*> >
*

*> >It is the x-coordinate that determines the state, in our analogy. Are you
*

*> >really saying that randomly shooting arrows into *any* finite segment
*

(and

*> >therefore *all* finite segments) of your infinite tape will yield
*

*> >x-coordinates something like (rounded to one dec. place): -0.9, 3.1,
*

*> >8.7, -0.1, -0.4, 1.8, -0.5, 3.0, ...? That does not seem very random to
*

me.

*> >And what if I had wished to compare the chance of 'hitting' the first
*

three

*> >states (-1 to 2.999...) with the last eight (3 to 9.999...)? Would that
*

*> >still be an equal chance of either? If so, that would require a different
*

*> >'random' sequence - but they should be the same hits!
*

Received on Mon Feb 25 2002 - 13:50:00 PST

Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:39:25 -0000

You now appear to be talking about the indeterminate case (where effectively

you can't fire individual random arrows), which is excluded on empirical

grounds (see sect. 2 again). I repeat, the selective use of copies as given

in the paper - *within* the context of states, and where relative

frequencies match those of other states - will differ (as far as I can tell)

from your 'nested everythings', which, if applicable, will be treated as a

distinguishable state, and so amenable to an ordering process (under all

possibilities).

Thank you anyway for your comments which have definitely been helpful to

me - I think we are bound to come up with different solutions if we have

different starting assumptions.

----- Original Message -----

From: H J Ruhl <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>

To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>

Sent: 23 February 2002 21:39

Subject: Re: Draft Philosophy Paper

as

would

to

other

(and

me.

three

Received on Mon Feb 25 2002 - 13:50:00 PST

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:07 PST
*